Hi Yes this is also what Chris Mattmann voted +1 as on this discussion [1] would be a solution.
[1] http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Remove-the-old-ActiveMQ-Console-td4675925.html#a4676010 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Gary Tully <[email protected]> wrote: > Exactly, I don't see any good reason for treating it differently. > I think skinning is enough. > > On 22 January 2014 22:44, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]> wrote: >> Starting up a new thread to avoid hijacking the original POLL thread. >> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Without the hawt.io community donating the relevant ActiveMQ portions to the >>> ASF we will not be able to get a consensus around proposal #3. Thus, that >>> needs to be taken off the table. >> >> I think that's a faulty assumption that needs to get discussed and addressed. >> >> Any hawtio UI that we package in the ActiveMQ will be reviewed by the >> PMC. Like any 3rd party library that we ship, it has to have an >> approved license and it's functionality has to be tested and verified >> by the ActiveMQ project. If we the PMC does not like some detail of >> hawtio we just need to open issues to address them and once it's to >> the PMC's liking we can then package it. This is no different from >> any other 3rd party lib we use so why are we treating it differently? >> >> -- >> Hiram Chirino > > > > -- > http://redhat.com > http://blog.garytully.com -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: [email protected] Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen Make your Camel applications look hawt, try: http://hawt.io
